◆ SpookStack

6) [sy 222 East Chestnut Street Corporation. This matter involved protracted lit ve’ appeals. I was the lead counsel representingh real estate developer of a high rise apartment building in the city of Chicago. The action began with our request for a variation from the zoning laws of Chicago. The variation was granted by the Zoning Board and the 222 East Chestnut Street Corporation, which had intervened before the Zoning Board, obtained a stay . against proceeding with the building, pending an appeal of the Zoning Board decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. The Illinois Supreme Court ultimately vacated the stay and dismissed the appeal. 10 I11. 2d 132, 139 N. E. 2d 218 (1956) The intervenors then filed a state court injunction.:suit which was finally dismissed by the Appellate Court of Illinois. The intervenors then filed a federal court injunction suit which was finally dismissed by the Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. 253 F. 2d 484 (1958), cert. den., 358 U.S. 827 (1958), reh. den., 358-.U.S. 901 (1958) I then filed a malicious prosecu- tion suit on behalf of my client in federal court, claiming the initial intervention and efforts had been based on improper motives. The Federal District Court dismissed that cause of action, but the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded it for trial. 267 F. 2d 247 (C.A. 7, 1959), cert. den. 361 U.S. 836 (1959) The trial was then held before a jury, including a full prove-up of damages arising from the delays caused by 222 East Chestnut Street Corporation. The suit was against both the Chestnut Street Corporation and the bonding company which had issued the bond for the original stay. A verdict was entered in favor of the plaintiff and was affirmed in part and remanded by the Court of Appeals. 303 F. 2d 630 (1962). Certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. 371 U.S. 935 (1962) On remand the Federal District Court, after trying the case before the jury, directed a verdict agains I took an appeal to the b6 Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court and remanded bic the case to the trial court. 353 F. 2d 680 (C.A. 7, 1965) Certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. 384 U.S. 938 (1966) The 222 East Chestnut orporation finally agreed to pay substantial damages tof The litigation occurred over a 10 year period.and remains a classic in the use of the appellate process in a commercial dispute. The trial judge in the malicious prosecution actions was Judge Joseph Samue] Perry, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Il1., 60604, Room 2525, 312-435-5632. Opposing counsel throughout these matters Ppl